This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,376 Members


How Nuclear Safety Undermines Nuclear Economics

Fukushima disaster (photo Fukushima watch)

Fukushima Disaster. (Photo: Fukushima Watch)

Failed EPR and AP1000 reactor projects have brought giant energy companies to their knees, and even pro-nuclear lobbyists now acknowledge that the industry is in crisis. Jim Green, editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, takes stock of the crisis in the global nuclear sector and concludes that the industry’s likely response, a retreat from post-Fukushima efforts to strengthen safety standards, risks making a bad situation worse.

The crisis over Toshiba that is it hitting the headlines is part of a much deeper crisis in the global nuclear sector. The venerable Japanese company is far from the only nuclear player

in crisis. Take France. The French government is selling assets so it can prop up its heavily indebted nuclear utilities. Électricité de France (EDF) announced in 2015 that it would sell €10bn of assets by 2020 to rein in its debt, which now stands at €37.4bn. EDF is being pressured by the French government to purchase parts of its bankrupt sibling Areva, which has accumulated losses of over €10bn over the past five years.

French EPR reactors under construction in France and Finland are three times over budget ‒ the combined cost overruns amount to about €15bn. Bloomberg noted in April 2015 that Areva’s EPR export ambitions are in tatters, and now Areva itself is in tatters.

‘Nuclear dark ages’

These latest dramas occur against a backdrop of deep industry malaise, with the only hope of growth now resting squarely on the shoulders of China. A February 15 piece in the Financial Times said: “Hopes of a nuclear renaissance have largely disappeared. For many suppliers, not least Toshiba, simply avoiding a nuclear dark ages would be achievement enough.”

Toshiba and Westinghouse are in deep trouble because of massive cost overruns building four AP1000 reactors in the US ‒ the combined overruns are about €11.6bn and counting. The saga is detailed in Bloomberg pieces titled ‘Toshiba’s Nuclear Reactor Mess Winds Back to a Louisiana Swamp‘ and ‘Toshiba’s Record Fall Highlights U.S. Nuclear Cost Nightmare‘.

Toshiba said on February 14 that it expects to book a €5.9bn writedown on Westinghouse, on top of a €1.9bn writedown in April 2016. The losses exceed the €5.1bn Toshiba paid when it bought a majority stake in Westinghouse in 2006.

Many thousands of staff, skilled across a range of disciplines, need to be trained and employed if the nuclear power industry is to move ahead (or even survive)

The four AP1000 reactors are the only ones under construction in the US. “There’s billions and billions of dollars at stake here,” said Gregory Jaczko, former head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “This could take down Toshiba and it certainly means the end of new nuclear construction in the US.”

Bankruptcy looms for Toshiba, with the banks circling and the risk heightened by the likelihood of further delays and cost overruns with the AP1000 reactors in the US, and unresolved litigation over those projects.

‘Too much of a mess’

Toshiba says it would likely sell Westinghouse if that was an option ‒ but there is no prospect of a buyer. The nuclear unit is, as Bloomberg noted, “too much of a mess” to sell. And since that isn’t an option, Toshiba must sell profitable businesses instead to stave off bankruptcy. The company plans to sell most ‒ perhaps all ‒ of its profitable microchip business to prop up the nuclear carcass and avoid bankruptcy.

The company might get €12.3‒16.1bn by selling its entire stake in its microchip business, said Joel Hruska from ExtremeTech. “That would pay off the company’s immediate debts,” Hruska said, “but would leave it holding the bag on an incredibly expensive, underwhelming nuclear business with no prospects for near-term improvement.”

Toshiba plans to exit the high-risk reactor construction business and focus its nuclear business on design, equipment supply and engineering services.

UK plans

One site where the nuclear problems come together is Moorside in the UK. A Toshiba / Engie consortium was planning to build three AP1000 reactors there, but Toshiba wants to sell its stake in the consortium NuGen in the wake of its massive losses from AP1000 construction projects in the US. Engie also reportedly wants to sell its stake in the consortium, and the French government has already sold part of its stake in Engie … to help prop up EDF and Areva! Deck-chairs are being shuffled.

Cumbrians will be glad to see the back of corruption-plagued Toshiba ‒ but corruption-plagued South Korean utility KEPCO might take its place.

Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) commented: “KEPCO is itself still emerging from a major scandal that surfaced in 2012 involving bribery, corruption and faked safety tests for critical nuclear plant equipment which resulted in a prolonged shut-down of a number of nuclear power stations and the jailing of power engineers and parts suppliers.”

“Nuclear safety always undermines nuclear economics. Inherently, it’s a technology whose time never comes” 

Plans for six AP1000 reactors in India may not survive the Toshiba/Westinghouse meltdown either. The project is now almost impossible according to Reuters’ sources. India is said to be one of the countries leading the ‘nuclear renaissance’ but hasn’t seen a single reactor construction start since 2011.

Toshiba’s demise would not greatly concern the nuclear industry if it was an isolated case, but it is symptomatic of industry-wide problems. Nick Butler from Kings College London wrote in a Financial Times online post: “Toshiba is just one company in the global nuclear industry, but its current problems are symptomatic of the difficulties facing all the private enterprises in the sector. Civil nuclear power involves huge up-front capital costs, very long pay-back periods and high risks that are compounded by a lack of experience, especially in managing nuclear construction projects after a long period with few new plants. For all those reasons, private investors avoid the sector and prefer to put their money where they see faster and safer returns.”

‘Rapidly accelerating crisis’

The nuclear industry and its supporters have responded in varying ways to the crises facing nuclear utilities and the industry’s broader malaise. Some opt for head-in-the-sand delusion and denial. Others are extremely pessimistic about the industry’s future. Others paint a picture of serious but surmountable problems.

Michael Shellenberger from the pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute presents cataclysmic assessments of nuclear power’s rapidly accelerating crisis and a crisis that threatens the death of nuclear energy in the West“. He notes that: “Nations are unlikely to buy nuclear from nations like the US, France and Japan that are closing (or not opening) their nuclear power plants. (…) From now on, there are only three major players in the global nuclear power plant market: Korea, China and Russia. The US, the EU and Japan are just out of the game. France could get back in, but they are not competitive today.”

That’s good news for the nuclear industries in South Korea, China and Russia. But they might end up squabbling over scraps ‒ there were just three reactor construction starts last year around the world.

South Korean companies have failed to win a single contract since the contract to build four reactors in the UAE. Likewise, China has made no inroads into export markets other than projects in Pakistan and Argentina.

Russia’s Rosatom has countless non-binding agreements to supply reactors, mostly in developing countries. But Russia can’t afford the loan funding promised in these agreements, and most of the potential customer countries can’t afford to pay the capital costs for reactors. Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd says it is “highly unlikely that Russia will succeed in carrying out even half of the projects in which it claims to be closely involved”.

Pro-nuclear commentator Dan Yurman writes that a “sense of panic is emerging globally” as Toshiba exits the reactor construction industry.

Radical breaks from past designs sometimes work in industries that require little up-front capital, like Internet companies. It’s now clear that they are deadly when it comes to nuclear” 

Yurman adds: “After nine years of writing about the global nuclear industry, these developments make for an unusually grim outlook. It’s a very big rock hitting the pond. Toshiba’s self-inflicted wounds will result in long lasting challenges to the future of the global nuclear energy industry. Worse, it comes on top of the French government having to restructure and recapitalize Areva …”

Yurman notes that Westinghouse may struggle to keep its nuclear workforce intact: “Layoffs and cost cutting could reduce the core competencies of the firm and its ability to meet the service needs of existing customers much less be a vendor of nuclear technologies for new projects.”

Likewise, Will Davis, a consultant and writer for the American Nuclear Society, explains the failure of the Japanese/US AP1000 projects and the French EPR projects with reference to the “loss of institutional knowledge, industrial capability and construction capability” over the past generation.

As recent history has repeatedly shown, that loss of capability leads to reactor project delays and cost overruns, and that in turn leads one after another country to abandon plans for new reactors.

Many thousands of staff, skilled across a range of disciplines, need to be trained and employed if the nuclear power industry is to move ahead (or even survive). But utilities and companies are firing thousands of staff and making a perilous situation much worse … possibly irretrievable. EDF, for example, plans to cut 5,200 to 7,000 staff by 2019 (including 2,000 sacked last year) ‒ about 10% of its total workforce.

Ironically, Westinghouse, the villain in Toshiba’s demise, may have made the best strategic decision of all the nuclear utilities. In 2014, Westinghouse announced plans to expand and hopefully triple its nuclear decommissioning business. The global reactor fleet is ageing and the International Energy Agency anticipates an “unprecedented rate of decommissioning” ‒ almost 200 reactor shut-downs between 2014 and 2040.

A future for nuclear power?

A fundamental difficulty for the nuclear industry is that the imperatives for greater safety and reduced costs push in opposite directions. Mark Cooper, from the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, recently told the New York Times: “Nuclear safety always undermines nuclear economics. Inherently, it’s a technology whose time never comes.”

Beyond platitudes ‒ the obvious need for high safety standards, somehow building up the skills base and so on ‒ it’s difficult to see a way out of the mess.

The industry ‒ or more to the point, nuclear enthusiasts outside the industry ‒ could drop the tiresome rhetoric about Generation IV technology coming to the rescue. Shellenberger may have reached that conclusion, writing recently that: “Radical breaks from past designs sometimes work in industries that require little up-front capital, like Internet companies. It’s now clear that they are deadly when it comes to nuclear.”

And Shellenberger’s comments only refer to APR1000 and EPR projects, which aren’t radical at all. The likelihood of genuinely radical Generation IV concepts coming to the rescue is minuscule in circumstances where the inability to build conventional reactors on-time and on-budget has brought industry giants like Toshiba, Westinghouse, EDF and Areva to their knees.

A retreat from post-Fukushima efforts to strengthen safety standards seems to be where the industry and its enthusiasts are heading

Retreating from post-Fukushima efforts to strengthen safety standards inevitably increases the risk of another Chernobyl- or Fukushima-scale catastrophe. Leaving aside the hotly-disputed health effects from those disasters, the economic costs associated with both disasters was in the ball-park of US$500 billion, and both had devastating impacts on public acceptance of nuclear power.

Yet a retreat from post-Fukushima efforts to strengthen safety standards seems to be where the industry and its enthusiasts are heading. Proposals include weakening safety regulations; abandoning Generation 3/3+ reactors in favour of Generation 2 reactor types (or redefining Generation 2 reactor types as Generation 3/3+); and overturning the established scientific orthodoxy that even the smallest doses of ionizing radiation can cause morbidity and mortality.

How to convince the public to accept reduced nuclear safety standards? In a word: spin. Shellenberger, for example, wants “higher social acceptance” but he also wants weakened safety regulations such as the repeal of a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule designed to strengthen reactors against aircraft strikes. He squares the circle with spin and sophistry, claiming (without evidence) that the NRC’s Aircraft Impact Rule “would not improve safety” and claiming (without evidence) that the NRC “caved in to demands” from anti-nuclear groups to establish the rule.


Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where a version of this article was originally published.

Original Post

Energy Post's picture

Thank Energy for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.


Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Feb 23, 2017 8:18 pm GMT

An excellent overview!

At the moment one of the big issues for the new EPR at Hinkley concerns, whether the found cracks in the bottom of the two new reactor vessels are acceptable.
If the safety standards are lowered enough, it will be…

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Feb 23, 2017 9:03 pm GMT

It has taken decades of $billions per year to invest in unemployment and crime. While the most vital of industries like safe, reliable, efficient nuclear generated electric power were forced to re-invent themselves with a “business model.” Well, nuclear scientists invented a bad business model. They thought they could sell themselves as cheap and easy and compete with toy technology.

We are seeing an attitude adjustment in the US. We don’t buy the politics of starving the farmer, bankrupting the best and brightest students, or ignoring critical industries and watching them rot. Stalin followed such “moral populism” politics until he had no food, no skilled workers, and Nazis danced to his doorstep.

You want outstanding electric power? A nuclear power revival will take leadership, and it won’t be cheap (it never was).

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Feb 24, 2017 12:07 am GMT

Compared with your “toy technology” as implemented in Germany and Denmark, new nuclear power deliver:

– unreliable power as big (>1GW) nuclear plants do stop occasionally totally within a second at unpredictable moments. Something “toy technology” never does.
Hence electricity reliability in these countries is 4-10 times better than in nuclear countries such as France, UK and USA.

– KWh’s with far more CO2 emissions than “toy technology”. As indicated by the much higher price which nuclear need to produce those KWh’s*)

– radiation to its surroundings, so newborn up to 40km around have increased genetic damage
– some risk on explosions to people around, while socializing most of the damage costs to the citizens
– high risk that (part of) the costs of decommission and nuclear waste are also socialized.
*) An higher price indicates more labor which implies more emissions as you may assume that nuclear workers spend their money to products and activities which emit similar amounts of CO2 per $ compared with workers in the wind and solar industry.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Feb 24, 2017 4:07 am GMT

I agree with your rough comparisons and concerns. And am shocked by nuclear advocates trivializing radiation controls. Infrastructure vulnerability has not been able to adapt to malicious attack like the airline industry which uses public money. Like a cheap lawyer, cheap nuclear can be very expensive.

But there really is no alternative to developing nuclear baseload, as I’m sure you agree (if not admit). We can invest in highways or we can walk.

I don’t mind your toy technology. Just don’t try force me to bet my life on it.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Feb 24, 2017 5:59 am GMT

Highly developed countries bet their future on “toy technology”.

While the Germans progress with their Energiewende in past ~16years, they gradually reduced the targets for generation using classic technologies (those involving steam-turbines; such as bio-fuel) and expanded the role of wind, solar, storage.

Especially storage using Power-to-Gas as that is cheaper than e.g. biomass to bridge seasonal gaps (e.g. longer periods without wind).

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Feb 24, 2017 7:00 am GMT

Bas, once again, your sources conflict with mainstream science.

Public exposure to radiation resulting from the generation of electricity by nuclear power plants is just a fraction of that from coal-powered plants, according to a report from the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

Fake science from coal advocates must be rejected. It has kept the environmental movement fighting the wrong energy source for far too long.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Feb 24, 2017 8:17 am GMT

It’s such a pity that UNSCEAR got so much pro-nuclear fanatics since 1958 when they indicated to UN general assembly that increases of low level radiation will be shown by the increasing m/f sex ratio of newborn due to the genetic damage caused to male sperm during its production, as also shown by e.g. Scherb etal.
Which genetic damage becomes of course also part of the genes of the newborn.

It’s seems more or less the same transformation as the one which occurred with the WHO after the enforced 1959 agreement with the IAEA. That agreement states that the IAEA is leading regarding nuclear radiation.

Before the agreement WHO was repeatedly very critical regarding the atmospheric bomb testing (health and genetic damage to the world’s population). After the agreement no critical publication from the WHO at all. Just following IAEA whose explicit target is the promotion of nuclear.

The only report which seems to be composed independent from the IAEA is the recent WHO expert committee report regarding Fukushima.
That report predicts up to 7% more cancers in later life for the Fukushima children, despite the adequate and fast evacuations.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Feb 24, 2017 12:13 pm GMT

I don’t waste time arguing about “highly developed countries” energy theories. Here we have stored biomass energy up to our ears, and the question for us (me) is what to do about it? You can’t just burn it!

Years ago some tractor jockeys argued we can grow corn ethanol everywhere. They conveniently forgot all the scarce input resources needed, and now years of baled grass hay is getting piled in the middle of depleted fields.

Our energy policy is like arguing with the drunk who knows he can drive — then say’s he’s sorry after an accident.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Feb 24, 2017 12:43 pm GMT

Long time ago – after the nuclear attacks in Japan, we started to get factual knowledge about the effect of radiation.
Not only from testing animals.

Nuclear bomb survivors, and especially their children, were monitored very carefully.
It came as a surprise to everybody that:
– Those exposed to 500 mSv, had no shorter life expectancy than other people. (500 mSv is more than 100 times what usually is regarded as the limit.)
– Those exposed to near deadly doses, 3000 mSv, had a life expectancy 3 years less than the control group.
– There was no sign of more birth defects among children born to people exposed to even high levels of radiation.
– There has not been a reported extra case of cancer.

I have tried to collect some relevant information on and

Further, it is worth considering that people have lived for generations at areas where the radiation, from radon, is far above what we usually accept.
There has not been any harm to these people and the ratio male/female has not been affected.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Feb 24, 2017 1:22 pm GMT

Shure “Western Nuclear” is in deep troubles.
This has been seen again and again.
We must conduct a proper post mortem and find out why.
First the obvious symptoms:
– Cheapest nuclear power from an ‘old system’ (Sweden): € 26/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): € 27/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear power (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
China, Russia and Korea are able to follow plans. Both costs and timetable.

We have to analyze the horrifying symptoms and I have tried to come forward with the following:
– Why it is so expensive:
– How the exaggerated demands for safety undermines the economy:

I dare to say that we have been foolish and listened to some so-called green.
Obviously they are not able to accept realities.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Feb 24, 2017 2:53 pm GMT

In the early days of genetic mapping, radiation was used to induce point mutations in species like fruit flies and E. Coli that rapidly reproduced. An example point mutation is tryptophan synthetase, where the species could no longer make its own amino acid and could be followed over generations.

Further, nuclear decay is not just the radiation event, it is resultant isotopes, themselves often unstable. Carbon dating relies on this technique. You get unstable isotopes in DNA and it isn’t an exact replica anymore.

Also, physical properties of water are effected by deuterium and tritium and often exploited in chemical labeling.

Radiation effects can be deadly, sickening, obscure. Instead of questioning the physics, you should question your “survey” results. Don’t mess with stupidity.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Feb 25, 2017 3:50 pm GMT

See reply above.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Feb 25, 2017 3:51 pm GMT

Yes Rick, at high doses, radiation can be deadly, but real world results show that low dose radiation is not a problem (all life forms have an inherent need for repair mechanisms for chemical and radiation damage). This chart from Fear of Radiation – It’s All In the Noise, shows that even using the LNT hypothesis (which is known to greatly over-estimate cancers), predicted cancers from low dose radiation are too low to worry about. Unless radiation dose reach a level high enough to cause noticeable radiation sickness (e.g. nausea), above 10 rem or 100 mSv, there is no measurable increase in cancer risk.

We know for a fact that it is air pollution and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuel and biomass that are the problem.

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on Feb 25, 2017 4:32 pm GMT

Bas/Bentvels, again you’ve shamelessly misrepresented your source. The WHO report continues:

It is important to note that due to the low baseline rates of thyroid cancer, even a large relative increase represents a small absolute increase in risks. For example, the baseline lifetime risk of thyroid cancer for females is just three-quarters of one percent and the additional lifetime risk estimated in this assessment for a female infant exposed in the most affected location is one-half of one percent.

Also, you’ve neglected to mention that the WHO report strongly contradicts the dire warnings from Scherb et al:

The estimated dose levels in Fukushima prefecture were also too low to affect fetal development or outcome of pregnancy and no increases, as a result of antenatal radiation exposure, in spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, perinatal mortality, congenital defects or cognitive impairment are anticipated.

Rick Engebretson's picture
Rick Engebretson on Feb 25, 2017 8:09 pm GMT

Your “cancer” data would likely compare well with studies showing people born with two heads were unaffected. Thalidomide and Zika virus have confounded genetics scientists long before you became an expert. And an expert at ammonia syn-fuels, too.

Change my advocacy. As long as experts like you are involved we are better off with solar panels.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Feb 27, 2017 10:50 am GMT

Without being an expert, I dare to make reference to

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Mar 5, 2017 9:44 am GMT

Nuclear bombs radiation was mainly a short gamma blast.
But even with that, the latest report nr. 14 of the RERF studies shows that;

1- The excess risk per Gy (~Sv) for those exposed at age 30 was 42% for solid cancers at age 70 years.
While we know that adults (age 30) are orders of magnitude less vulnerable for radiation than children/babies as their cell division rate is so low.*)

2- The lowest dose with significant extra risks for all solid cancer was 0 to 0.2Gy, while dose-threshold analysis indicated no threshold. So zero dose is the best estimate of a threshold.

As noted a.o. in the 1958 UNSCEAR report to the UN**) , the risk on (DNA) damage for sperm during production is even another order of magnitude higher than that for fetuses/babies.
That UNSCEAR report also state that increased m/f sex-ratio of new born is a sensitive and good indication of (genetic damage caused by) increased low level radiation.**)

The increased genetic damage found for new born around all nuclear facilities (Power Plants, waste storage facilities) is in line with that UNSCEAR report.

The question is whether you care about health and intelligence of our next generations.
May be you don’t care that another method of electricity generation damages our (grand-, grand-, etc) children.

*) At cell division the DNA is single stranded, so cannot be repaired when damaged by a radiation particle, etc.
This implies that the risks for children is many times higher and that for babies again many times higher, and fetuses again an order of magnitude higher. Sperm in production has the highest cell division rate, hence is most vulnerable.

**) DNA of male spem is slightly smaller than that of female sperm. Hence it has a lower risk to be hit (and damaged or killed) by a radiation particle.

***) That was just before the atomic powers took action to kill opposition against the atmospheric bomb tests.
Those tests were banned anyway some years later on, also because Norway put an ultimatum that it would retreat from NATO if USA & UK continued with the atmospheric tests..

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Mar 5, 2017 10:06 am GMT

The expectations in your second citation are now already contradicted by the facts.
At least one study shows highly significant increased levels of peri-natal deaths in prefectures ‘near’*) to the Fukushima exclusion zone (starting ~9months after Fukushima).

Which indicates that the Japanese authorities made the exclusion zone small, damaging their next generations.
*) ‘near’ being up to ~500km away!
Despite the luck that ~99% of the airborne radio-active material was blown directly towards the huge ocean…

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Apr 8, 2017 11:00 am GMT

The latest reports from the Radiation Effect Research Foundation, the international cooperation which study the effects of the atomic bomb on Japan, conclude totally different. From the summary:

“The estimated lowest dose range with a significant ERR (=extra risk) for all solid cancer was 0 to 0.20 Gy (=~Sv), and a formal dose-threshold analysis indicated no threshold; i.e., zero dose was the best estimate of the threshold.”

Yes, people live in areas where background radiation is higher, but they also suffer from significant increased health damage as showed here.
Furthermore their next generations have significant increased levels of DNA damage as shown a.o. for people living at Ramsar, Iran. While the radiation level in the highest radiation district is with 6mSv/a only ~3times higher than ‘normal’ background.
Increased level of DNA damage usually imply less intelligence, less healthy, more chance on birth defects, etc.
But may by you don’t care about (quality of life for) our next generations?

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Apr 8, 2017 11:27 am GMT

Burning wood, etc. implies that the CO2 which is taken out of the atmosphere recently, is reinserted. *)
Hence the world decided at the Kyoto conference that it’s renewable,

If you don’t agree, I suggest that you defend your position at next world climate conference.

*) Burning coal and oil implies inserting new CO2 into the atmosphere. As the CO2 in those fuels was taken out of the atmosphere many millions of years ago. Presumable under totally different climate circumstances (heated up atmosphere, etc).
Hence the world decided it’s not renewable.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on Apr 8, 2017 12:27 pm GMT

May be you know that radiation treatment for cancer is given in several small doses.
It is because short time exposure is less harmful to the human organism.
Whatever you find, it is a well established fact that survivors after the nuclear attacks being exposed to 500 mSv or less did not have a shorter lifespan than other people.

Darius Bentvels's picture
Darius Bentvels on Apr 8, 2017 1:11 pm GMT

Many follow up studies find highly increased cancer risks for patients that were cured using radiation.
A radiation therapist told me that the dose is a risk estimation. If life can be prolonged few years before a radiation induced cancer*) ends it, one can consider it to be worthwhile.

Your “well established fact regarding 500mSv” is clearly contradicted by the research results as stated in the reports of the authoritative Radiation Effect Research Foundation regarding the victims of the Atomic Bombs.
Read their reports.

So sorry, I only can conclude that your source is a pro-nuclear fantasy.
*) Radiation induced as it’s a different type of cancer with a different genetic signature.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »